SEATTLE--Viewers
of the WGBH / Clear Blue Sky series "Evolution" will be given the false
impression that a Swedish scientist has proven how evolution could produce
the human eye in less than half a million years.

"Zoologist
Dan-Erik Nilsson has developed models to show how a primitive eye spot
could evolve through indeterminate stages to become a complex human-like
eye in less than half a million years," the narrator of "Evolution"
tells viewers. As the narrator continues to describe Nilsson's research,
Nilsson is shown working diligently at his computer. The implication
is that he has created a computer "model" to simulate how an unguided
process of natural selection could produce the eye. Nilsson is shown
saying that his research shows "exactly the way eye evolution must proceed."

In reality,
neither Nilsson nor anyone else has thus far created a computer model
for eye evolution. Furthermore, according to Discovery Institute Senior
Fellow David Berlinski, the crude calculations that have been published
by Nilsson are not such a model. Berlinski holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy
from Princeton University and was a fellow of the faculty in mathematics
and a postdoctoral fellow in biology at Columbia University. He is the
acclaimed author of such books as "A Tour of the Calculus" (Pantheon,
1996) and "The Advent of the Algorithm" (Harcourt, 2000) and "Newton's
Gift" (Free Press 2001). He lives in Paris.

"In
1994, Nilsson and Susanne Pelger published an article called, 'A pessimistic
estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve,'" says Berlinski.
"The article contained a couple of back-of-the-envelope calculations
that if we assume this, and we assume that, we'll get an eye in 400,000
generations. There was absolutely nothing by the way of supporting evidence
or documentation. Nothing. You could have said '800,000 generations,'
or you could have said 2 zillion years. All of that would have been
equally supported by the evidence Nilsson and Pelger actually presented."

"Even if
we were to accept everything they say--counting mere calculations as
if they were a computer model, and a half million years' evolution was
sufficient--all they would have demonstrated applies only to the formation
of an eyeBALL, not to a complete eye. An eye is an organ that accounts
for what an organism sees or can see; it is far more than an eyeball.
PBS at best is guilty of a wild exaggeration.'

Since Nilsson
and Pelger's article was published, it has been widely--but erroneously--reported
that their conclusions were based on a computer model. Berlinski calls
this claim "an urban myth." "

The Nilsson-Pelger
paper is interesting but very minimal. We wrote to Nilsson and he quite
freely acknowledges that his article on eye evolution was not based
on any computer model," says Jay Richards, also a Discovery Institute
Senior Fellow. "Nilsson
says that he is now trying to create such a computer model, but it still
needs a lot of work."

"PBS is
misleading viewers when it presents Nilsson's conjectures as if they
were established science," Richards adds. "At a minimum, PBS should
make clear to viewers that Nilsson's conclusions are not based on computer
models at all, and it should acknowledge that his work is highly speculative."

Founded
in 1990, Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy
center for national and international affairs. Its programs deal with
a range of issues, including science, technology, regional development,
environment, and defense. More information about the Institute and its
activities can be found at www.discovery.org.